Last updated October 2026 · By Nick Hall, tracks federal carry law and Justice Department court filings for USA Gun Shop readers
Quick take: The Justice Department told a federal court on October 2, 2026 that carrying a handgun for self-defense in public National Park Service buildings, like visitor centers and shops, is lawful under federal law. That is the government’s position in a brief asking a judge to throw out a lawsuit, not a court ruling and not a change to the statute. The Park Service’s own website still says firearms are prohibited in its buildings.
- What happened: In a 17-page memorandum filed October 2, 2026 in Zimmerman v. Blanche, DOJ told the Northern District of Texas that it reads federal law to permit lawful self-defense carry in public federal buildings inside national parks.
- Why it matters: The filing applies an August 12, 2026 Office of Legal Counsel opinion about post offices to park visitor centers and shops, which that opinion said it did not address.
- What’s next: Senior Judge Terry R. Means has to rule on the motion to dismiss, and a dismissal for lack of standing would end the case with no court ruling on what the statute means.
- Who to watch: The National Park Service, whose firearms page still lists visitor centers and ranger stations among the buildings where guns are prohibited.
Most “you can carry there now” headlines come from a court striking a law down or a legislature repealing one. This is neither. It’s a government lawyer arguing that two Texans cannot sue because nobody is going to prosecute them. I read the 17-page brief and the 28-page opinion behind it. Here’s what they say, and where the gap is.
Deals of the Day
Today's best discounts · Updated 3x daily
Gun Deals
See All →
Ammo Deals
See All →
Table of Contents
What DOJ Told the Court in Zimmerman v. Blanche
The document is a memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss, entry 22 on the court docket in Zimmerman v. Blanche, case 4:26-cv-372-Y in the Northern District of Texas. Jody D. Lowenstein, a trial attorney in the Civil Division’s Federal Programs Branch, signed it.
The plaintiffs are two Texans and two gun-rights groups: Gary Zimmerman of Fort Worth, a license-to-carry instructor who holds carry licenses in ten states, Lisa Ventura of Tarrant County, the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation. They sued Todd Blanche in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General.
They want Section 930(a) of Title 18, the federal facilities gun ban, declared unconstitutional as applied to Park Service buildings, along with any firearm restrictions imposed under the Park Service closure regulation.
Zimmerman carries a handgun in the parks, and before he walks into a park building for a permit or supplies he disarms by “placing his firearm in a safe he keeps for that purpose in the glovebox of his car.” He plans to visit fifteen parks over two years, Big Bend, Arches and Yellowstone among them.
DOJ’s answer is that he has nothing to fear. A plaintiff who sues before being charged has to show a credible threat of prosecution, and the brief says “here, it isn’t.”
The reason: “The Department of Justice, which is charged with enforcing § 930(a), has taken the position that § 930(a) does not proscribe the conduct in which Zimmerman wishes to engage.” The brief defines that conduct as “the carrying of a handgun for self-defense in public federal facilities in the national parks he intends to visit.”
The buildings it has in mind are “run-of-the-mill park facilities that are widely held open to the public, like visitor centers or shops.” And the ask is one line long: “The Court should dismiss this case.”
The Post Office Opinion the Whole Brief Stands On
DOJ did not invent this reading for the lawsuit. On August 12, 2026, its Office of Legal Counsel issued a 28-page opinion titled Application of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) to Post Offices, signed by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora C. Pettit.
18 U.S.C. § 930 makes it a crime to knowingly possess a firearm in a “Federal facility,” punishable by a fine, up to a year in prison, or both. A federal facility is a building, or part of one, owned or leased by the federal government “where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.” That covers a post office and a park visitor center alike.
The statute has three exceptions. The third covers “the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” Asked whether DOJ should keep reading that narrowly, the opinion answers in three words: “It should not.”
OLC’s reading has two parts. The carrying must be lawful, which rules out anyone barred from having a gun, and it must be for a lawful purpose. Then the sentence that matters: “Carrying arms for self-defense when entering a building held open to the public is a paradigmatic lawful purpose.”
The conclusion reaches the Postal Service’s own no-guns regulation as well: “the Executive Branch may not enforce 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) or the Postal Service’s regulations against a law-abiding individual who carries a constitutionally protected firearm into a post office for the purpose of self-defense.”
This is the same office whose January opinion led the Postal Service to mail handguns again, and which said in September that the under-21 handgun sales ban cannot be enforced against dealers.
The post office opinion even mentions parks. “The National Park Service has interpreted the resulting statutory structure as entitling law-abiding citizens to carry firearms onto parklands (under section 104906) but not into park buildings (under a narrow view of section 930(d)(3)),” it says.
The Gap Between Post Offices and National Park Buildings
Here is the catch. The opinion’s last sentence reads: “We do not address post offices that are closed to the public or federal facilities other than post offices.” A footnote adds that its historical analysis should not “be understood to reach any conclusions about other federal facilities.”
The October 2 brief crosses that gap on its own authority. OLC’s reading of the exception was not specific to mail counters, it argues, so “the applicability of its statutory interpretation to Zimmerman’s desired conduct is self-evident.”
Read that wording closely. The brief contains no pledge to leave everyone in a park building alone. What it says is that DOJ reads the statute to allow this conduct, that DOJ holds “exclusive prosecutorial authority over all federal crimes that occur in the national parks that Zimmerman intends to visit,” and that he therefore faces no credible threat. A reading of the law, offered to win a standing argument.
And nothing else has moved. Congress has not amended Section 930. No court has adopted DOJ’s reading in this case, and the opinion itself counts three district court decisions that read the exception more narrowly before answering, “We respectfully disagree.”
The National Park Service has not caught up either. Its Firearms in National Parks page, last updated December 14, 2017, still reads: “Unless expressly authorized, Federal law prohibits the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon in NPS facilities.” Visitor centers and ranger stations are on its list.
Then there are the signs. Section 930(h) requires notice of the ban to be “posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility,” and the brief says nothing about taking those notices down.
An OLC opinion binds the executive branch, not the courts, and it lasts only as long as the Justice Department stands by it. A future administration or a court can take a different view.
What the DOJ Position Does Not Cover
Federal court facilities are out. They fall under a separate subsection with a penalty of up to two years, and the opinion notes that the lawful purposes exception does not apply there.
Areas closed to the public are not covered either. The opinion says the government can close property to the public, and a footnote says the people who work there “may not be able to exercise the right to keep and bear arms without the permission of their employer.”
State law still decides whether your carry is lawful in the first place. The opinion says the lawful carrying test “considers both state and federal law.” The park carry statute, 54 U.S.C. 104906, protects possession only where it “is in compliance with the law of the State in which the System unit is located.”
If the state the park is in would not let you carry on the sidewalk outside, DOJ’s position does not help you inside. Check it in our gun laws by state directory before the trip, and remember the Park Service’s warning that “Some parks are located in more than one state or locality.”
Park-specific closures are a separate question. DOJ told the court that the rule compendia for the fifteen parks on Zimmerman’s list show no firearm restrictions under the closure regulation: “There are none.” But the plaintiffs’ complaint points to Mammoth Cave National Park, which is not on that list, as banning firearms on cave tours under the same regulation.
What Happens Next, and What I’d Do Before a Park Trip
The motion is in front of Senior Judge Terry R. Means. The public docket, last updated on October 2, 2026, lists the motion and the memorandum as its newest entries.
If the judge agrees that nobody has standing, the case ends without a word on whether Section 930(a) is constitutional, and DOJ’s reading stays what it is today: the government’s opinion.
Me? I’d still read the notice on the door. Until the Park Service changes its page or a court rules, I do not think a brief is enough to bet a federal charge on.
DOJ says the door is open. The sign on it still says otherwise.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you carry a gun in a national park?
Federal law, 54 U.S.C. 104906, bars the Interior Department from prohibiting firearm possession in a National Park System unit if the person is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm and the possession complies with the law of the state where the park is located. Park buildings are treated separately under 18 U.S.C. 930, and discharging a firearm in a park is prohibited unless authorized.
Can you carry a gun into a national park visitor center?
The text of 18 U.S.C. 930(a) prohibits firearms in federal facilities, with an exception for lawful carrying incident to hunting or other lawful purposes. In a court filing dated October 2, 2026, the Justice Department said it reads that exception to permit lawful self-defense carry in park buildings open to the public, such as visitor centers and shops. No court has ruled on that reading in the case, and the National Park Service website still says firearms are prohibited in its facilities.
Is the DOJ filing in Zimmerman v. Blanche a court ruling?
No. It is a memorandum supporting the government's motion to dismiss a lawsuit for lack of standing in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It states the Justice Department's legal position. It does not change 18 U.S.C. 930 or any National Park Service regulation, and no court has ruled on that position in the case.
Can you carry a gun in a post office?
The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concluded on August 12, 2026 that the executive branch may not enforce 18 U.S.C. 930(a) or the Postal Service firearms regulation against a law-abiding person who carries a constitutionally protected firearm into a post office open to the public for self-defense. The statute and the regulation, 39 C.F.R. 232.1(l), have not been repealed, and the opinion does not cover post offices closed to the public.
What does 18 U.S.C. 930 prohibit?
It makes it a federal crime to knowingly possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a federal facility, meaning a building or part of one owned or leased by the federal government where federal employees are regularly present to do their jobs. The penalty under subsection (a) is a fine, up to one year in prison, or both. Federal court facilities are covered by a separate subsection with a penalty of up to two years.
Does state law still apply when you carry in a national park?
Yes. The park carry statute protects possession only when it complies with the law of the state where the park is located, and the Office of Legal Counsel opinion says lawful carrying under 18 U.S.C. 930 is judged under both state and federal law. A park that spans more than one state can have different rules in different areas.
Does the DOJ position cover federal courthouses or employee-only areas?
No. Federal court facilities fall under 18 U.S.C. 930(e), where the lawful purposes exception does not apply. The Justice Department's position is limited to federal buildings open to the public, and the Office of Legal Counsel opinion says the government can close property to the public and can limit carry by its own employees.
Can a future administration reverse the DOJ position on carrying in federal buildings?
Yes. An Office of Legal Counsel opinion is the executive branch's own reading of the law. It binds federal agencies, not the courts, and the Justice Department can withdraw or replace it. A court can also read 18 U.S.C. 930 differently, and three district courts have read the lawful purposes exception more narrowly.
Related Reading
- US Gun Laws by State: 2026 Legal Directory
- DOJ Says the Under-21 Handgun Sales Ban Is Unconstitutional
- USPS Will Mail Handguns Again. Here’s What Changed.
- DOJ Will Not Appeal the Texas NFA Registration Ruling
- Carrying Concealed in Your Car: Holsters, Mounts, and Legal Traps
- A Trucker Is Asking the Supreme Court to Settle Carry Reciprocity
4,663+ Gun & Ammo Deals
Updated daily from 200+ top retailers. Filter by category, caliber, action type, and price.
